Gudmund Schütte.

Ptolemy's maps of northern Europe, a reconstruction of the prototypes online

. (page 7 of 17)
Online LibraryGudmund SchüttePtolemy's maps of northern Europe, a reconstruction of the prototypes → online text (page 7 of 17)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

Strabo, Mela, Pliny, Tacitus. Cf. Figures 2, 3, 5 and L. Schmidt (Seeliger's
"Hist. Vierteljahrschrift" 1902) who has already assumed a corresponding
prototype. Cf. also the additions in Appendix A (after § 29).

b. Ptolemaic Localisation.
The framework of A forms the basis of Ptolemy's map of Germany.
It is correctly localised, as it must be, for the frontier rivers, Rhine and
Danube, allowed of no mistake.

c. Definition of Limits.

The introduction of other prototypes into the area of A has already
been described in the paragraph dealing with the collective prototyped,
§ 18, and need not be repeated here.

We only emphasize that the rivers Chalusos and Svebos and the
river-name Viadua belong to the details introduced by the Ptol. con-
structor, and that the mountain Abnoba A has been displaced towards
the north-east, owing to the amalgamation with Prot. Ai^: the Ptol.
Abnoba in reality corresponds to the Vallum Trajani of Prot. Ad, whereas
its northern extremity may conceal the mountain *Taunus of Prot. A,
still reflected by the Ptol. position of the town Ar-taunon, cf. under e.

d. General Topographic Scheme.
The Ptol. design of German mountains and rivers is highly remark-
able because of its excellence which may be called almost unrivalled
throughout the entire atlas. It is e. g. decidedly better than the corre-
sponding description of Gaul, although the latter country had been a
Roman province for more than two centuries when Ptolemy was making


his atlas. Such a physical map of Germany seems to point towards the
existence of an individual prototype. Its elements, when taken separately,
might certainly be attributed to the above-mentioned local prototypes,
such as Aa, Ab, Bi. But the fusion into an excellent physical map of
Germany seems to point to the authorship of one person, — a topo-
grapher with very special experience.

e. Statistical Features.

Ptolemy records the names of no less than lo mountains or woods
in Germany. The town Ar-taunon may point towards the original pre-
sence of a number ii, the Taunus, even if the town itself is in reality
the Belgian Orolaunum, now Arlon or Aarlen, transplanted by the Ptol.
constructor from Prot. C.

There are not so many rivers, as several Ptolemaic ones must be
eliminated: Vidros belongs to Prot. Ab, Chalusos and Svebos to B2, and
Viaduas is a duplicate of Vistula. But, on the other hand, the Ptol.
constructor may have eliminated names of rivers occurring in Prot. A.
We conclude this from the fact that his map of Germany contains no
less than three anonymous affluents of the Danube.

We have not been able to discover any tribes or towns which must
necessarily have filled out the framework of A. Its contents may have
been merely physical.

f. Occurrence of Duplicates.

Two of the mountains, belonging to the complexe of A, re-appear
in the duplicate series of Bi & B2, viz. Asbikurgion (alias Askiburgion)
= Bikurgion, and Sudeta = "tribe" Sudenoi. They must, then, have
occurred in the special maps describing the mercantile road from the
Danube to the inferior Vistula. But this assumption does not imply that
they were omitted in A\ they seem to form absolutely indispensable
links in the mountain system of the latter prototype. Melibokos A has
by R. Much been identified with the town Melokabos, belonging to
Prot. Ab, and we have had the same idea independently; but the dupli-
cate would in this case most likely have existed in actual nomenclature,
as Melokabos belongs to a well verified list of Roman frontier fortresses
(Prot. Ab), and corresponds to the present Miltenberg.

g. Linguistic Marks.
Latinism: Semanus, to be supplemented: saltus ("wood").

h. Literary Milieu.
The elaboration of Prot. A is due to the military and mercantile
undertakings of the Romans during the first century A. D. The eastern



area, extending from the Danube to the inferior Vistula will be investi-
gated in the paragraph dealing with Prot. Bi & B2.

The main features of Prot. A re-appears in the works of all geo-
graphers from the first half of the century. Cf. the following synopsis.

Ptolemaic map (supplemented by


*eninsula Cimbric Chersonese Cimbric Chers.




a row of islands islands along N. W.
along N. W. Ger- Germany

"town Fleum"

Cimbri in the Co- Cimbric headla:
dan Gulf, i. e.
on a peninsula

islands in the re- 23 islands aloi
gion of the tide N.W. Germai
(= North Sea)


"town" Fabira(non)


Fabaria = Bi






Hercynius Hercynius

Abnova (do. T


"town" Ar-taunon

"town" *Teutiburgior




Askiburgion (do. Bi

& B2)
Sudetsi (do. B J &B2)
Sarmatika ore


Taunus (do. Tacitus)

(Teutoburgiensis saltus, Tacitus)




Albis Albis

Amisias, Amasias


Amisis Amisis




Visurgis Visurgis
Vistula Vistla, Visculus

It appears from the comparison that the Ptol. map puts the main
stress on the orography and in this respect it remains unrivalled. Other
classical authorities only add little to the Ptolemaic selection, viz. Caesar:
Bacenis; Tacitus: Silva Caesia; Dio: Vandalika ore; Tab. Peuting. : Silva

56 Ptolemy's maps of northern Europe

The Ptol. hydrography of Germany is distinct and good, but it is not
so unique as the orography of the same section. The Ptol. main rivers
are known collectively by Mela and Pliny, and, with one exception, also
by Strabo. And each of these authors, as well as Tacitus, adds rivers
which do not appear on the Ptol. map, viz. Strabo: Lupias, Salas; Mela:
Lupia, Flevo, Moenis (and s^yamps Suesia, Metia, Melsyagus); Pliny:
Flevus, Marus, Duria; Tacitus: Lupia, Nabalia, Adrana, Cusus; cf. also
Marc Aurehus: Qranua; Ausonius: Nicer. We have, however, mentioned
that the Ptol. constructor seems to have left out river-names occurring in
Prot. A, and it is also not excluded that the Ptol. towns Fleum and
Nabalia were originally accompanied by the homonymous rivers, known
from Tacitus.

If we consider the additional material of Strabo, Mela, Pliny, and
Tacitus, we shall notice that apart from two exceptions, the names con-
cerned are all quite individual to each of these authors.

Consequently, a general correspondence between Strabo, Mela, Pliny,
and Tacitus, only takes place at such points where it is shared by the
Ptol. map of Germany.

We regard this fact as a further indication that Prot. A was a docu-
ment which fundamentally influenced the classical ideas about Germanic
geography. It furnished the main framework not only of the Ptolemaic
map, but also of the descriptive representations of the same regions.

i. Examination of Details.

Semanus is Fichtelgebirge, the centre of the middle German moun-
tains. In German, the name may have sounded simply Sema; the
ending -nus would be a Latin addition. The ancient name seems to be
preserved in Cechian as Smrciny.

Sudeta = Bohmerwald. The present localisation^ north-east of Bo-
hemia is absurd, — a fatal consequence of the superstition that only
Ptolemy's text and not his atlas must be regarded as conclusive.

Gabreta = Baierischer Wald, or perhaps some southern extremities
of the Bohmerwald. .

Luna, and the Sarmatian mountains, might be respectively the Moravian
hills and the small Carpathian mountains. But they may perhaps also be
interpreted thus: sm. Carpathian mountains and Tatra.

Askiburgion, the "Ash-mountain", is generally identified with the
Jesenik which means the same in Slavonian. The mountain Jeschken or
Je§ted in northern Bohemia may perhaps also reflect the ancient name.

Melibokos is = the Thiiringerwald, according to Ptolemy's map. If
the same name occurs in Melokabos Ad (read: *Melobakos), now Milten-
berg, its area would have extended to the western course of the Main,
including the mountain Speshard. The element -bokos is = "beech",


occurring in several German names of mountains, such as Deutschbuch,
Albuch etc.

Tauno-, in Ptolemy's Ar-taunon, = Feldberg in Hessen. The present
use of the name Taunus is of course a learned invention.

Abnoba = the Schwarzwald; the Ptol. displacement of the name has
been mentioned above under b. Cf. Chr. Mehlis, "Die klassischen
Namen des Schwarzwaldes", in "Petermanns Mitteilungen", 191 4, p. 74,
where the extension of the Abnoba is shown by means of Roman in-

Albia = die rauhe Alb, or Schwabische Alb.

j. Conclusion.

The individual existence of Prot. A is in the first line derived from
the impression which the observer receives from the physical design. The
general correspondence with the geographers of the first century A. D.
affords a support, even if it must be admitted that the evidence is
somewhat meagre, as it is in most cases limited to the category of very
important names. The Ptolemaic amalgamation of Prot. A with other
original maps greatly contributes to effacing its prominent qualities, and
as long as observers contented themselves with the modern Ptolemaic
maps reconstructed from the text, there would be still less chance of a
favourable valution. When modern scholars have hitherto unanimously
placed the Ptolemaic Sudeta north of Bohemia, not south of this country,
their mistake betrays that they regarded the Ptolemaic design as hope-
lessly confused. The study of the hitherto despised MS. atlas will here,
as in other points, contribute to a juster valuation of our assumed Prot. A.



a. Summary of Contents.

Prot. Aa is a special map; a coast description, stretching from about
the Rhine to eastern Denmark; including Scania, but not the whole of
the Scandinavian Peninsula. It contains detailed observations of headlands
and islands; numerous tribes, but few or no towns. Duplicates of its
names occur in C, D, E, and F. Some Latin marks. The prototype
would have been executed shortly after the expedition of the Roman
navy to the Cimbric Chersonese 5 A. D. Affinities with Augustus
(Monum. Ancyr.), Mela, Pliny, less pronounced affinities with Strabo and
Tacitus. Cf. Figures i — 4, 6 — 7, 29.

58 Ptolemy's maps of northern Europe

b. Ptolemaic Localisation.

In its present appearance, Prot. Aa has been used in order to sup-
plement the older collective map which originated from the times before
the Roman discoveries along the North Sea and the Baltic. This carto-
graphic process of amalgamation was in most cases carried out success-
fully. Most likely, it was accomplished before the stage of the Ptol.

c. Definition of Limits.

The displaced Prot. C, on the Ptolemaic map, invades the German
part of Aa, covering it all over with towns. The Cimbric Chersonese,
however, remains completely untouched.

The western German part of Aa is invaded by Prot. Ab, as the Ptol.
constructor exaggerates the Limes Transrhenanus and the southern river
Amisias so far that they reach the North Sea.

On its southern periphery, Prot. Aa touches the displaced prototypes
B2 and D, which generally do not invade its area. Prot. D offers the
most marked contrast. As soon as the German tribes of Prot. Aa stop,
those of D continue. A sharp line of demarcation is formed by the
three Swabian tribes of D, stretching from the Rhine to the Oder. Only
one single tribe of Aa transgresses the line, viz. the *Tenkteroi. The
sudden appearing of the i>-set shows that the prototype Aa did not go
farther south than to middle Germany. Then the space was left blank,
capable of receiving the interpolated Ptolemaic mass of names.

The extension of Prot. Aa towards the south-east is easy to observe:
evidently, the southern coast of the Baltic remained unexplored and was
therefore expressed by a smooth theoretical line betraying no topographic
experience. The contrast to the relatively detailed design of Scania is

South of the Baltic, the eastern outposts of Aa touch the north-
western outposts of F\ Teuton . . Ouirunoi Aa = Teutones Auarpoi F.

Prot. Sk, i. e. the Scandinavian Peninsula, is amalgamated with the
blank map of Scania in Aa, perhaps through the intermedium of F,
cf. §§ 26—28.

d. General Topographic Scheme.

The physical design of Prot. Aa is first class. Its coast description
of north-western Germany is excellent. That of Denmark is simply
astonishing, ^- for we must take into account that the country remained
unexplored till the year 5 A. D., and that the Romans had no opportunity
of continuing their explorations after that date. It is scarcely conceivable
how the Roman officers could discover so much during some few months'
stay near the Danish coasts.


It must be added that the description of the Danish and Saxon
archipelagoes no doubt suffered deterioration at the hands of the Ptol.
constructor who introduced an arbitrary artistic arrangement, viz. the 3
times 3 islets surrounding the Cimbric Chersonese.

e. Statistical Features.

Prot. Aa, as we mentioned above, contains mainly tribes, whereas
Prot. B2 and C contain a copious selection of both tribes and towns.
Ady on the other hand, contains towns and no tribes. It must, however,
not be forgotten that the Ptol. constructor may have increased the con-
trast, by leaving out all details from the Cimbric Chersonese except the
names of tribes (and of surrounding islets). Cf § 15.

Within Prot. Aa, we notice some instances of "ethno-topic de-
nomination", viz. Kimbroi & Kimbrike Chersonesos, Saxones & Saxon
islets, Virunoi & town Virunon. The occurrence of this feature, however,
can scarcely be said to constitute a predominant system, such as in
Prot. F.

f. Occurrence of Duplicates.

Chaimai, Kaukoi mikroi, Askiburgion = Kamauoi, Kalukones, Askalin-
gion C (perhaps also TuUsurgion = Tulifurdon represent a duplicate of
Aa and C).

Lakkobardoi, Charudes Aa — Laggobardoi, Farodinoi B.

Teuton-_, Ouirunoi (Virunoi) Aa — Teutones, Auarpoi F, Auarinoi £.

Marionis Aa = Marionis C is a pseudo-duplicate, as the name be-
longing to C seems to be a mutilation of Matilone on the Tabula Peutin-
geriana. Cf. § 24, f.

g. Linguistic Marks.

Latinisms or misreadings pointing towards Latin script.

Cimbric Chersonese. Fundus'ioi misread for *j5"«dusii. Saxones (with
"omikron"; versus Sigulones).

Germany. Bunition = Munition in Ad. Fleum ; Tenkeroi, Angrivarioi ;
LAKKOBARDOI misread for *LANKO- < *LANCO-; misunderstood
correction *"vari" above *Viruni; Teuton- (with '^omikron"); Treoua.
No typically Greek marks.

h. Literary Milieu.

Prot. Aa represents the topographical information collected during the
time of Roman rule over N. W. Germany. The prototype is of some-
what later origin than the Imperial map of the world, for the former
was executed by the year 7 B. C, whereas the Roman dominion over
N. W. Germany did not reach its zenith before 5 A. D. After the

6o Ptolemy's maps of northern Europe

downfall of Roman power in the year 9 A. D., and after the Romans
had in 47 A. D. definitely given up their last positions along the coast
of N. W. Germany, the topography of these regions soon ceased to be
generally known, — a fact stated directly by Tacitus, "Ger mania" ch. 41 :
"Albis .... flumen inclitum et notum olim; nunc tantum auditur". On
the following pages, we shall show through a series of details that Prot.
Aa agrees with the authorities from the first century A. D., whereas it
has marked differences from the stage of Tacitus. As to Strabo, we
should be led to expect that he would present distinct points of resem-
blance with Prot. Aa, because he wrote at the beginning of the century.
But, singularly enough, he rather agrees with the geographers of the
Tacitean stage. To a great extent, his lack of knowledge is obviously
due to the fact that he would not believe in the Roman discoveries
north-east of the Elbe, as he states emphatically VII, p. 294.

The chief milieu of Prot. Aa is represented by the authors Augustus,
Mela, and Pliny, as we shall now indicate through a series of ob-

1. More or less distinct knowledge of numerous islands in the North
Sea and between the Cimbric Chersonese and Scania is common to Aa,
Mela, Pliny (III, 6, resp. IV, 96). Strabo at least knew of islands along
the coast of north-western Germany, whereas he ignored those of the
Baltic (VII, p. 291).

2. The name of Scandia is common to Aa and Pliny (IV, 104).
Pliny's identical name Scadinauia (IV, 96) may be compared with Mela's
Codanouia (III, 6, 54).

3. Distinct knowledge of a large gulf behind the Cimbric Chersonese
is common to Aa, Mela, Pliny (ibd.).

4. Distinct knowledge of a Cimbric Chersonese forms a prominent
point of resemblance between Aa, Mela and PHny (III, 3, 32, resp. II,
167, IV, 96). Strabo also knew of the Chersonese (VII, p. 292), —
only he would not admit that it was situated north of the Elbe. Tacitus
had no distinct idea of a Cimbric Chersonese, and at the stage of the
Tab, Peutingeriana, this idea had disappeared from the horizon of the

5. Distinct knowledge of the Kimbroi as neighbours of the Charudes
(= the present Himmerboers beside the Hardboers) betrays a close
affinity between Aa and Augustus. Cf. Pliny's headland Chactris beside
the Cimbri (IV, 97); but the name is also spelt Thastris.

6. The contiguity of the Cimbric Chersonese with the Teuton(oaroi)
reflects Mela and Pliny who represent the Cimbri and Teutones as neigh-
bours (III, 3, 32, resp. IV, 99). Both Aa and Mela, like Prot. F, re-
present the Teutones as a Baltic tribe, although with different localisation
[Aa and F \ in western Pomerania, or on the island of Riigen; Mela


(III, 6, 54): on the island of Codanouia, i. e. either Sealand or Scan-

7. The absence of the Angles on the Cimbric Chersonese (in the
district of Angel) is common to Aa, Strabo, Mela, and Pliny. This
negative feature is in contrast to the scheme of Prot. D and Tacitus,
the only two classical authorities to whom the Angles are known.

8. The Swabian group does not appear, for the Langobardoi Aa are
mentioned without the addition of "Sveboi". It is similar to Pliny who
does not represent the Hermunduri as belonging to the Swabian group.
Mela, at the best, mentions the Swabians quite by the way^). This
scheme was a natural consequence of the fact that the great Swabian
Empire, to which the Langobards belonged, had been ruined in the year
17 A. D. Strabo here differs from Aa and Pliny on equally natural
grounds, because he wrote before the catastrophe mentioned and, con-
sequently, still knew the Langobards as subjects of the Swabian Empire.
A sharper contrast to Aa and Pliny is offered by Prot. D and Tacitus,
for here the Swabians are emphasized in spite of their political downfall;
it is a sort of metachronism which is avoided in the older set of

9. The sub-division of the Brukteroi is common to Aa and Strabo
(VII, p. 291)^). The Tabula Peutingeriana represents them as undivided,
whereas it knows of sub- divisions among the Franks. Tacitus directly
asserts that the Brukteroi had lately been almost exterminated by their
neighbours ('^Germ." ch. 33)^). Consequently, we must assume that Prot.
Aa originates from the times before the said catastrophe.

10. The Angrivarioi, according to Aa, are placed on the eastern
side of the Weser, and the Kauchoi only occupy the coast region. Ac-
cording to Tacitus ("Germ." ch. 33 & 35), the Angrivarii had lately ex-
tended their territory towards the west, conquering the Bructeri. At the
same time, the Chauci had advanced in eastern Hannoveria so far, that
they touched the Chatti, i. e. the inhabitants of Hessen. Here again
Prot. Aa represents the older stage.

So much for those authorities whom we may regard as forming the
main milieu of Prot. Aa.

It still remains to add some few words concerning the eventual resem-
blance with the milieu of Prot. Z>, especially with Tacitus.

^) Mela, III, 5, 45 mentions "Baeti" or "Boti" who are in Pliny's quotation of the same
passage replaced by "Svebi" (II, 170).

^) The sub-division of the Chaucs is more generally stated: by Aa^ Strabo (Kaukoi &
*Kaulkoi) VII, p. 291, Vellejus II, 106, Pliny XVI, 2, Tacitus, "Ann." XI, 19.

') The words of Tacitus must not be taken quite literally. The Brukteroi were by no
means exterminated, as they re-appear on the Tab. Peutingeriana, and still as a well-known
tribe till the 9th century (Bede etc.).

62 Ptolemy's maps of northern Europe

The following cases must be taken into account.

tribe Dulgubnioi = Dulgumnii, Tacitus, "Germania" ch. 34.

— *Eudusioi = Eudoses, Tacitus, "Germania" ch. 40.

town Askiburgion = Asciburgium, Tacitus, "Germania" ch. 3, Asciburgio

Tab. Peuting. (Askalingion Prot. C).

— Nabalia = river Nabalia, Tacitus, "Historiae" V, 26.

— Fleum = fortress Flevum, Tacitus, "Annals" IV, 72.

— Siatutanda(!) = "ad sua tutanda", Tacitus, "Annals" IV, 73.

Such cases cannot prove that Prot. Aa had the same close affinity
with Tacitus as with the older geographers. The preserved remnants of
Mela's and Pliny's works give only fragmentary ideas about the northern
horizon of these authors. The horizon of Tacitus is much better ex-
emplified, — we may suppose, that his preserved works illustrate his
knowledge of Germanic tribes in a fairly exhaustive way. Thus it may
be a mere accident that Ptolemaic tribes like Dulgubnioi and *Eudusioi
re-appear only in the works of Tacitus and not in those of Mela, Pliny
etc. We may add, that even if Mela and Pliny do not mention the
fortress of Flevum, they know at least the Vlie-stroom, from which it
has drawn its name (Mela Flevo, Pliny Flevus). The monstrous town
of "Siatutanda" or "Protect-their-homesteads" is certainly fabricated on
the base of the Tacitean "Annals", but it does not necessarity imply that
the blunder was due to the author of Prot. Aa, — the name may just
as well have been interpolated by a succeding editor.

The main thing is the fact that the general topographic ideas of
Prot. Aa harmonize with those of Mela and Pliny, and not with those of
Tacitus. This fact remains unshaken in spite of the names mentioned
which re-appear in Tacitean works.

i. Examination of Details.

It may be regarded as superfluous to comment upon all physical
details of Prot. Aa. Their general correspondence with nature is striking,
whereas nobody will demand of the first map of Denmark ever designed
that it should be completely free from error. We may content ourselves
with considering some special points which want explanation.

The islands of Alokiai have by some scholars been identified with
the present Halligen along the west coast of Slesvig; so e. g. on the
map of Germania in R. Kiepert's "Formae Orbis Antiqui", published
19 14. This identification is improbable from the phonetic point of view,
and quite impossible from the topographical. The classical form of the
name would scarcely have begun with a Latin H, resp. a Greek spiritus
asper, which might easily be dropped. The initial letter would rather have


been either Ck or K, in Latin C, and even if Ptolemy may drop any
initial letter, there is no reason for this suspicion here unless the topo-
graphy would lead us to it. The topography, however, directly excludes
it, for the Alokiai, on the Ptolemaic map, are not the islands west of Sles-
vig, but clearly those forming the northern extremity of Jutland, as it
was already stated a century ago by such Danish scholars as Bredsdorff.

The present Ptolemaic map certainly exaggerates the distance of the
Alokiai from the southern shore of the Limfjord, but this representation
need not belong to Prot. Aa, — it may be a part of the Ptol. con-
structor's artistic scheme of arranging the islets round the Cimbric Cher-
sonese. Whereas the insular districts Ty and Vendsyssel north of the
Limfjord are nowadays connected by an isthmus, the Ptol. map assumes
the absence of this connection, as it leads 3 channels from the Limfjord
directly into the bay of Jammer-Bugt. It is possible that the Roman ob-
servers were mistaken, but at the same time their error would be very
explicable, for the middle part of the isthmus mentioned consists of hills
arising to a considerable height within surroundings of low level: such

1 2 3 4 5 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Online LibraryGudmund SchüttePtolemy's maps of northern Europe, a reconstruction of the prototypes → online text (page 7 of 17)